Bomb Making Info to be Illegal

Soon, it may be illegal to distribute bomb making instructions.
Get your copy while you still can!

The Terrorist's Handbook is available at:
http://www.meaning.com/library/boom/thb/

The entire handbook, in HTML format, can be downloaded from:
ftp://ftp.meaning.com/pub/library/thb.tgz

DOWNLOAD A COPY WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
-silenced


>From WIRED news www.wired.com:

           Senate Votes to Block Bomb-Making Info
           by Rebecca Vesely

           12:09pm  20.Jun.97.PDT The Senate has voted 94-0 to tack onto a
           Defense Department spending bill an amendment that would
           prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions in the United
           States.

           Although the word "Internet" is not mentioned in the four-page
           amendment, the legislation would outlaw Web sites, newspapers,
           zines, and books that publish instructions on how to make a
           bomb - such as The Anarchist's Cookbook and The Terrorist
           Handbook. Violators would face fines and prison sentences of
           up to 20 years.

           Sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who has
           been trying to get the legislation on the books since 1995, the
           amendment passed Thursday is narrowly written to include only
           the distribution of material that has an "intent to harm."

...

At 11:17 AM -0700 6/25/97, Silenced wrote:
>Soon, it may be illegal to distribute bomb making instructions.
>Get your copy while you still can!
>           Sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who has
>           been trying to get the legislation on the books since 1995, the
>           amendment passed Thursday is narrowly written to include only
>           the distribution of material that has an "intent to harm."

When the DOJ looked at this issue in detail they came to the conclusion
that the  regulations could only be tightened, and not run afoul of the
First Amendment, if very carefully crafted.  In the final form it only
prohibits the teaching of bombmaking for criminal purposes. It's not clear
to me that the bill will restrict such material on the net, unless they
inplies criminal use. See:  http://jya.com/abi.htm.

What's not clear to me, and I wish someone would explain, is how the SC
managed to find pornography not similarly protected speech.  Arms and
munitions can be as arousing for some (e.g., Dr. Strangelove) as sex is for
others.


--Steve


PGP mail preferred
Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear              | tel: (702) 658-2654
CEO                       | fax: (702) 658-2673
First ECache Corporation  |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: azur@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        I know not what instruments others may use,
        but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt.

        SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

At 9:13 PM -0400 6/25/97, Mark M. wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>> What's not clear to me, and I wish someone would explain, is how the SC
>> managed to find pornography not similarly protected speech.  Arms and
>> munitions can be as arousing for some (e.g., Dr. Strangelove) as sex is for
>> others.
>
>It appears that Roth v. United States was the first case before that the
>U.S. SC decided that "obscenity" was not protected by the 1st Amendment.
>The reasoning was that while offensive, unorthodox, or hateful ideas
>are protected by the 1st, they, unlike pornography, have at least *some*
>redeeming social value.  The court noted that laws enacted after the
>ratification of the U.S. Constitution banned several different kinds of
>speech, including profanity, blasphemy, and libel.  It's a very common
>tactic for the courts to refer to post-ratification laws to support
>limits on Constitutional rights.

I can't see that anyone, including the courts, should use redeeming social
value as a yardstick.  This term has all the hateful aspects of one group's
mores being used to limit the freedom of their neighbor in the privacy of
their home and thoughts.  After all, one man's ceiling is another man's
floor.

What if we create religion who's practice requires use and possesion of
child porn?  Wonder how the SC would rule, given its rulings allowing use
of peyote by certain native American tribes and against the Mormons on the
issue of bigemy.

I think resistance to such limitations should go beyond legal avenues.

--Steve


PGP mail preferred
Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear              | tel: (702) 658-2654
CEO                       | fax: (702) 658-2673
First ECache Corporation  |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: azur@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        I know not what instruments others may use,
        but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt.

        SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:

> >It appears that Roth v. United States was the first case before that the
> >U.S. SC decided that "obscenity" was not protected by the 1st Amendment.
> >The reasoning was that while offensive, unorthodox, or hateful ideas
> >are protected by the 1st, they, unlike pornography, have at least *some*
> >redeeming social value.  The court noted that laws enacted after the
> >ratification of the U.S. Constitution banned several different kinds of
> >speech, including profanity, blasphemy, and libel.  It's a very common
> >tactic for the courts to refer to post-ratification laws to support
> >limits on Constitutional rights.
> 
> I can't see that anyone, including the courts, should use redeeming social
> value as a yardstick.  This term has all the hateful aspects of one group's
> mores being used to limit the freedom of their neighbor in the privacy of
> their home and thoughts.  After all, one man's ceiling is another man's
> floor.

I believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, but I can see
valid arguments, both for and against, the belief that the text of the
1st applies to obscenity.

> 
> What if we create religion who's practice requires use and possesion of
> child porn?  Wonder how the SC would rule, given its rulings allowing use
> of peyote by certain native American tribes and against the Mormons on the
> issue of bigemy.

On a related note, the supreme Court ruled today, in a 6-3 decision,
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was un-Constitutional.  This
federal law required that States prove that they have a "compelling
interest" to enforce laws that infringe on religious freedom.  This
ruling means that the States can continue to enforce peyote laws
against native Americans and, of course, enforce child porn laws against
anyone and everyone.



Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBM7KcEizIPc7jvyFpAQEL8wgAlQic5o76u4AWLBECfYPB5hCbi+KqlUFC
l3vIdwRfg5FTrTrRI+7LFz8UT6lZmBzR+qWJLRLgQPO6QgC0bhiRLLSWUWas2TAN
4nIyjh4J3E5JBWJLuzQ8ZccOOXmTR2+uEPb48568zsRzYeFV9HcgI/PgDvjwexye
+o5Kbs6zdN4kzDoLkgPTCsCxThb5FK/8OHtfNLQb4d7n5tK5FpWYjB/xbsYU00Sq
mDJcA2ekA9ky/5z3oXaKsrXiIw6AOJEyeQxEzmfuL5je6+Dm+HoxGqTh+xRyRH7v
mmKtFRx7yiYwifQHwPNEbW3IoUEWmfKvLpyQxeiQDsYc2pv8ycfUTg==
=+5Wz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> >The reasoning was that while offensive, unorthodox, or hateful ideas
> >are protected by the 1st, they, unlike pornography, have at least *some*
> >redeeming social value.  The court noted that laws enacted after the
>
> I can't see that anyone, including the courts, should use redeeming social
> value as a yardstick.  This term has all the hateful aspects of one group's
> mores being used to limit the freedom of their neighbor in the privacy of
> their home and thoughts.  After all, one man's ceiling is another man's
> floor.

I agree, besides the argument rests on direct democracy: The idea that 
something revolting or distasteful to a majority of people is therefore 
inherently wrong. Any idea or form of speech, even if 100% of a social 
group dislike it, is not criminal.  

> What if we create religion who's practice requires use and possesion of
> child porn?  Wonder how the SC would rule, given its rulings allowing use
> of peyote by certain native American tribes and against the Mormons on the
> issue of bigemy.

Maybe this would be a good test case, where is kibo when you need him ;-)...

> I think resistance to such limitations should go beyond legal avenues.

This and other issues should elicit such a response from reasonable 
people, the law is a useful tool in some cases but is not the right way 
to go about removing an unjust law, civil disobediance and, in extreme 
cases, even violent revolt are the best methods.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Steve wrote:

> What's not clear to me, and I wish someone would explain, is how the SC
> managed to find pornography not similarly protected speech.  Arms and
> munitions can be as arousing for some (e.g., Dr. Strangelove) as sex is for
> others.

It appears that Roth v. United States was the first case before that the
U.S. SC decided that "obscenity" was not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The reasoning was that while offensive, unorthodox, or hateful ideas
are protected by the 1st, they, unlike pornography, have at least *some*
redeeming social value.  The court noted that laws enacted after the
ratification of the U.S. Constitution banned several different kinds of
speech, including profanity, blasphemy, and libel.  It's a very common
tactic for the courts to refer to post-ratification laws to support
limits on Constitutional rights.



Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBM7HB9izIPc7jvyFpAQFYEgf+Kbx6mCeUYFFplzEnJKfP8vnlesgtt/5e
ESOhomTHsQkjgu11hsWkw5mQhrRcF4hHK/4e4fJp4zonY+X9ogtobWoASvunvbGT
XSTILWRkKwJtJIwxCUT2ybgER8vpR5U7AItyDjeGPB6mo7vP3cijkDiGXdmcdS+h
bR1BmAO7+P1YhZxyHTduNA7ywsWTJ2gBSYgaiiDToF/MGySDYqNvBJ0W/f9XeJ9s
Dj1bD3BxfRN1I3trjUlb8G4Ien5ffQxAohbMOqOimqm5PNCguggnERsSNoJVFAMm
JKJxt8N4CyIx0r8J8jpAPf7rQ4j5FNj0cY8QI4h8bZWIjezRtyrbgQ==
=2uUQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Free speech meant little for more than a hundred years of American history.  

What we think of as the First Amendment slowly came into being starting in the early 1900s.  

E.g., Justice Brandeis' great quotes in Whitney v. California were from his dissenting opinion; when movies first came before the Supreme Court in Mutual Film, they were *not* protected by the First Amendment and that wasn't overruled until 1952!


Lee

PS:  "obscenity" and "child pornography" are not protected speech, but "pornography" is not a legal category.  "Indecency" is a category, and it is protected speech -- the problem is that the government has a compelling interest in controlling minors' access to indecent material.


At 3:34 PM -0700 6/25/97, Deborah Stewart wrote:
[snip]
>
>What's not clear to me, and I wish someone would explain, is how the SC
>managed to find pornography not similarly protected speech.  Arms and
>munitions can be as arousing for some (e.g., Dr. Strangelove) as sex is for
>others.
>
>
>--Steve